Vice President Kamala Harris' recent statement in Michigan criticizing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement follows an unfortunate pattern of the Democrat's campaign: moving from mere evasion to outright fabrication.

Harris said she opposed the USMCA because it was worse than its predecessor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and that the results of the USMCA have proven her right. The truth is quite the opposite. The facts are these: As a senator, she voted against the new agreement, and thus in favor of keeping NAFTA in place, because she thought the climate restrictions in the new agreement were not strong enough. Her objection had nothing to do with protecting workers. She was playing to radical environmentalists in an election season with an eye toward her political career.

Harris' own comments at the time make this clear. Her January 2020 statement announcing her decision was that "after careful study and consultation with environmental and conservation leaders, I have concluded that the USMCA's environmental provisions are insufficient." There was nothing about workers in her rationale.

In other words, Harris voted to keep the nearly universally condemned and job-killing NAFTA in place because she decided to pander to climate lobbyists at the expense of our workers. This very same trade-off will undoubtedly continue in her administration if she wins the election.